Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

BTW, you never bothered to answer how they could manage to prerecord an entire mission prior to launch. How, exactly did it work?

When were the audio and transcripts released to the public?
Differentiate between press material and ALL material if you can.

Once again foos tries to change the subject.

I asked a question. You, and others, have alleged that the mission was faked by prerecording the entire mission. How would that have worked?
Transcripts have nothing to do with it.

Now please, answer the question.

Call NASA and ask them how they filmed it and relayed the pre-recorded tomfoolery of idiots falling down all over a moonset. Being jerked around by
wire men sitting in rafters above the starless moon set.

Ask an adept film maker how they make their movies of actors on various planets look so real. Then ask them why the Apollo moon movies look so fake,
that even the intellectually stunted can see they were fake.

Then call up Phil Plait and ask him how he can get his butt handed to him by a comedian in a simple debate about Apollo.

When Joe Rogan asked Phil Plait why the anots couldn't jump very high in 1/6th gravity, he answered because of the heavy backpacks they were wearing.
Then when Rogan pointed out the later missions when we see higher, and longer jumps, Plait refused to answer the contradiction, instead making a
moronic wager, he never intended to make good on.

When your beloved Apollogists are getting their butts kicked in debate with pot smoking comedians, it's time to admit defeat, and realize you've
been had. But I guess that wouldn't occur to you Apollo Fairy Tale lovers.

For christs sake, all you have to do is watch science programs about the true nature of space to wake up from this one. How long did it take you guys
to realize Santa couldn't possibly deliver all those presents in one night? Or how about the realization that there is no special dust that makes
reindeer fly? The more I read your submissions here, the more I think you guys must be flying on some sort of dust yourselves

Okay CHRLZ, now you can come chop this post up into little bits and do what you do best....

Which is to say, not answering anything directly, or sourcing your arguments.

So this is your big post about radiation? All it is ad hom and issue ducking. Make a sensible point. Oh yes, and provide a quote from any SFX designer
who thinks the moon landings were faked. You seem to imply there are some out there.

Originally posted by torch2k
Nice response, especially the part about:

Here is a study done by James DeMeo, PhD

Which includes:

My discussion below will surely raise controversy in the scientific interpretation of several interesting NASA photographs as taken on the
lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission.

So Dr. Demeo states that these pictures were taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission. He has some claims to make about them, which I
have no interest in discussing at this time. Nevertheless, let's refocus on:

as taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission

Its quite simple torch2k, if you believe that man landed on the moon with NASA know-how, then you are going to have to address those anomalies in
respect to people being on the moon.

I dont see why this is so difficult to understand. If we go to other alien planets we should expect to encounter phenomena alien to us. From biology
to physics. And so if NASA was truly curious about whats out there, as well as scientists studying NASA's research, then why are we not having open
and honest discussions about these findings? Have you ever heard the explanation for the blue glowing astronauts? What do you think it is? Are you
not curious considering you believe we went to the moon?

Think about it. When hoaxers say the shadows and the light looks strange in the photos. How many people actually say, 'well NASA discovered that on
the moon shadows and light behave differently for some reason.'?

Or why hasnt NASA explained why Astronauts do not jump six feet due to the 1/6th gravity? Ive read people try to explain this by saying the moon's
gravity is actually stronger than we thought, and the moon is hollow?? I mean, come on, NASA should be providing straight answers for these things.
They went six times with people supposedly.

Bro, the hoaxers were the NAZI's running our space program at the time. Although hoaxers, should be replaced with NAZI BASTARDS ROBBING TAXPAYERS
BLIND!

BTW, arguing with morons who cannot see this fraud by simple observation of Apollo photos and video footage alone, is like banging your head against a
wall. Nothing will change their moronic blathering, and all you get is a headache for your troubles.

Point out the radiation out in space, they'll make excuses about how great aluminum as shielding.

Illuminate simple facts which prove undeniably, the impossiblity of travel into, and beyond the VAB's they'll lie, saying they went around them, or
shot through real quick....Then ignore the gamma ray bursts, solar wind, solar flares, isotropic background radiation, as well as the radioactive
wasteland that is the MOON itself.

Direct them to the DOCUMENTED MAJOR SOLAR FLARES, during Apollo missions, and the articles where solar physicists admit major solar flares would have
killed them, and they'll argue about the DEFINITION of MAJOR SOLAR FLARES.

Show how NASA lied, provide video of anots contradicting each other, and other supposedly established facts, and they'll make fun of their own
heroes, by mentioning how old and feeble-minded they are.

In other words, your wasting your time with people who have no desire for truth if it interferes with their nightly dreams of their Apollo Fairy Tales
bro!

Here, let me get you started: There are two basic types of radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing. Non-ionizing radiation, such as visible light, is
generally considered harmless. Ionizing radiation, so called because it can strip atoms of sub-atomic particles, can have an adverse effect on living
organisms with enough exposure. There are four types of ionizing radiation: alpha, beta, gamma and neutron.... Over to you Un4g1v3n1....

Call NASA and ask them how they filmed it and relayed the pre-recorded tomfoolery of idiots falling down all over a moonset. Being jerked around by
wire men sitting in rafters above the starless moon set.

Ask an adept film maker how they make their movies of actors on various planets look so real. Then ask them why the Apollo moon movies look so fake,
that even the intellectually stunted can see they were fake.

Ah brilliant! You make an assertion that the Apollo missions were prerecorded fakes, and when asked to support that statement, you tell us to answer
it ourselves?!

That isn't the way it works. If you make an allegation, you have to support it.

This is what happens when you can't find an answer on youtube. I envision sparky here wading through hours of video searching for a plausible answer
as to how they got the astronauts off the stack, hid them, and the proceeded with a perfectly choreographed prerecorded mission NINE TIMES!

You're very good at rambling on for ages without saying very much.. You come on here and make allegations, so you should be prepared to back these
up. How about you make some point by point cases so they can be addressed properly? I'm interested in seeing the showdown but everytime someone
address you directly you waffle on and try and divert to a different facet of the subject.
In fact that's something that any Apollo hoax theory promoter seems to do, the only people I've ever seen make a point by point rebuttle of anything
are people in support of the Moon program.

So this is your big post about radiation? All it is ad hom and issue ducking. Make a sensible point. Oh yes, and provide a quote from any SFX designer
who thinks the moon landings were faked. You seem to imply there are some out there.

Be careful what you ask for...And if you are going to prod me like this, you should have the courtesy of actually doing the research yourself as
well...

Interesting, and compelling common sense, and practical evidence from another Apollo critic about the Van Allen Belts.

There are even times when an additional, new radiation belt can be formed:
SPACECRAFT FLEET TRACKS BLAST WAVE THROUGH SOLAR SYSTEM www.nasa.gov...

There are at least two kinds of solar storm effects: prompt radiation and shocks that accelerate electrically charged (ionized) atomic particles. The
prompt radiation travels at nearly the speed of light, causes the most severe electrical effects on satellites, and has the greatest impact on the
Earth's electrically charged upper atmosphere (ionosphere) and long-distance radio communications. The prompt radiation was detected in radio waves
throughout the solar system in the moments (hours in the case of Cassini out near Saturn) after each storm. The shocks that accelerate particles to
millions of miles per hour take a little longer to develop, but they pack the biggest wallop when it comes to the aurora, power grids, and energetic
particles that become trapped in the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts. These storms created a new radiation belt near Earth that lasted for several
weeks.

They have also found many other types of deadly radiation beyond the Van Allen Belts which keep coming to light as we continue to explore them. And
they just keep on discovering more as they continue their experiments/missions. You are hard pressed to watch a program about the energies in space
without hearing the words deadly, hazardous, or other adjectives describing the danger...And the best the space physicists can give us for the
success, and health of most Apollo astronauts is that the were lucky to not have encountered major solar flares during their missions. (A lie that I
will clear up for you a bit later in this diatribe) Meanwhile they refuse to take into account the many other deadly forms of radiation in space. BTW,
don't you find it ODD that space physicists, and space radiation experts would use LUCKY to describe HOW one would encounter such radiation and live
long, relatively healthy lives afterwards? I find it alarming, shocking, and downright deplorable that the space/radiation community continues to
allow itself to use such terms as lucky to describe Apollo success! And it raises a most important question: What else are the bull#ting us about?

"In space, however, electrons can turn against us. Boosted to almost the speed of light, "killer electrons" can knock out computers, pierce
spacesuits, and damage the tissues of astronauts. New research using NASA's STEREO spacecraft is discovering exactly how this happens.

Killer electrons lurk in the radiation belts surrounding Earth, called the Van Allen Belts after their discoverer, James Van Allen. Shaped like two
concentric pumpkin shells around the Earth, the Van Allen Belts are areas where electrons and other electrically charged particles get trapped by
Earth's magnetic field. Something happens there that turns ordinary electrons into high-speed demons.

Professor Cynthia Cattell of the University of Minnesota led a team that has found a likely culprit -- the most powerful radio waves of their kind
ever detected in the Belts. "No one has ever seen waves this big," says Cattell. "They're more than 10 times bigger than what we knew about."

Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on
January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps
... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that
the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the
instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman
later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic
barrier."

A question posed by dpwozney: "If it is a threat then why were not animal experiments beyond the Van Allen belts done first?" (The question makes
perfect sense to the logical, scientific-minded individual who would want to ENSURE astronaut survivablity)

Cosmic-ray mystery solved at last
An international team of astronomers using the Pierre Auger Observatory has obtained the best evidence yet that ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays striking
the Earth come from black holes lying at the heart of nearby galaxies. Using thousands of detectors spread over 3000 square kilometres in Argentina,
the team has managed to identify 27 such cosmic rays -- with energies of over 1019 electron volts (eV) -- as having come from these active galactic
nuclei. Having solved the mystery of where these cosmic rays come from, researchers now hope to get a better understanding of exactly how these
charged particles are accelerated to such high energies (Science 318 938). .

First discovered in the early 1960s, ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) are the most energetic charged particles in the Universe. They are also
exceedingly rare the Pierre Auger Observatory has only detected about 27 particles with energies above 5.7 *1019 eV since it started taking data in
2004.

ScienceDaily (May 24, 2007) — Using NASAs Swift satellite, astronomers have discovered that energetic flares seen after gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are
not just hiccups, they appear to be a continuation of the burst itself.

GRBs release in seconds the same amount of energy our Sun will emit over its expected 10 billion-year lifetime. The staggering energy of a
long-duration GRB (lasting more than a few seconds) comes from the core of a massive star collapsing to form a black hole or neutron star. In current
theory, inrushing gas forms a disk around the central object. Magnetic fields channel some of that material into two jets moving at near-light speed.
Collisions between shells of ejected material within the jet trigger the actual GRB.

Early in the mission, Swifts X-ray Telescope (XRT) discovered that the initial pulse of gamma-rays, known as prompt emission, is often followed
minutes to hours later by short-lived but powerful X-ray flares. The flares suggested — but did not prove — that GRB central engines remain active
long after the prompt emission.

"For that reason, chances are high that spacewalks may be shortened or scrapped altogether to protect astronauts' lives. If solar blasts are strong
enough, astronauts may take cover in more heavily shielded locations of the shuttle or space station, or even come home at the earliest opportunity."

NOTE: Apollo missions were 'supposedly' flown during SOLAR MAXIMUM! And they had no HEAVILY SHIELDED LOCATIONS, and were so far away, coming home
before getting hit by such storms was impossible!

A New Kind of Solar Storm science.nasa.gov...
June 10, 2005: January 2005 was a stormy month--in space. With little warning, a giant spot materialized on the sun and started exploding. Between
January 15th and 19th, sunspot 720 produced four powerful solar flares. When it exploded a fifth time on January 20th, onlookers were not surprised.

They should have been. Researchers realize now that the January 20th blast was something special. It has shaken the foundations of space weather
theory and, possibly, changed the way astronauts are going to operate when they return to the Moon.

Sunspot 720 unleashed a new kind of solar storm.

Scant minutes after the January 20th flare, a swarm of high-speed protons surrounded Earth and the Moon. Thirty minutes later, the most intense proton
storm in decades was underway.

"We've been hit by strong proton storms before, but [never so quickly]," says solar physicist Robert Lin of UC Berkeley. "Proton storms normally
develop hours or even days after a flare." This one began in minutes.

Personal note: NASA is calling it a NEW kind of Solar Storm. It's new to them. The sun has probably been emitting solar storms of this kind for
millions of years. It's just that NASA has finally recorded it, and are calling it new, do to their NEW understanding of it. No new storm, just new
discovery of it!

www.ngdc.noaa.gov... At this link you will find major solar flares during Apollo missions. All you have to do is
scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the link that says... Listing of CFI sorted by date -- 1955-1980

You will find that NASA denied there having been any major solar particle events. Jay Windley adds to that lie at Moon Base Clavius. The best
arguments by the Pro-Apollo Nutters has been to argue about the definition of Major Solar Flares being different according to NASA, from NOAA.

If you don't wish to spend the time it takes to see the amount of solar flares, and major solar flares during Apollo missions, I have recorded the
amounts and dates of the MAJOR ones in the following video. www.youtube.com...

Rather than go on and on with the many links about radiation, you can watch some of mine, or this very excellent one called Moonfaker: Radioactive
Anomolie by Jarrah White. www.youtube.com...

Try googling lucky astronauts to see the continual use of the word lucky to describe their 'success'.

When I watched the FOX program I remembered Bill Kaysing mentioning how the astronauts would have been heard over the noise of the Rockets. So I went
and compared the sound of Apollo astronaut transmissions during Mercury 3 and Apollo launches, with those of Shuttle launches. To me, the difference
in their voices is proof positive that the Apollo astronauts were not even aboard the Saturn V.

Of course I could go on, and on, and on with the many anomolies that prove that Apollo missions were faked. But all you really have to do is look at
the photos and videos with a critical eye, and ear to see and hear them for yourself.

I would suggest watching the Moonfaker videos produced by Jarrah White. You can watch mine, as I use more of a MTV music video format to point out the
fraud, but Jarrah does a most excellent job of a thorough explanation of the many anomolies pointing to the fraud.

You see, Apollo was nothing more than a publicity stunt, and cold war propaganda designed to create the illusion of US space, and military superiority
over the nasty ole Russkies. The same Russkies who had been embarrassing the US Space program by having every major first in space. Even though some
of their exploits were faked as well.

Speaking of fakes, check out the latest fake which has been revealed to the entire world now...

The above posts consist of a letter sent to one of your Apollo Fairy tale believers....It's just my thoughts on the many reasons we should all stop
believing this fraud as being real, and see NASA's lies for what they were...

Again, I have a huge list of links which should awaken even the deepest Apollo sleeper, should they truly want to wake up. Ive been dealing with guys
like you for over ten years now...I know none of you seriously believe in Apollo anymore...You just want to bother those who aren't afraid to admit
it!

Originally posted by CHRLZ
That, FoosM, is because only an *idiot* would push their luck by trying such a stupid feat on the Moon, where if they landed awkwardly (with their
FULL MASS + INERTIA, if not weight), there's a good chance of a ripped suit, damaged PLSS/whatever... And how the hell are they going to flex their
knees enough to jump far anyway, in those bulky suits?

Are you calling them idiots ?

I guess he just did call those astronauts idiots

But more importantly, look as the fakery revealed in that video.

1. The one time they "try" to jump high, what did they do? Hide the shot behind the Rover and frame the shot close. For all we know they could be
jumping on a trampoline.

2. Also look at 0:18, it looks like he was unexpectedly being pulled up

Astonishing. You speak of believing in 'fairy tales' and make disparaging references to people who understand the reality of Apollo, and real space
technology (not your distorted Hollywood-fantasy version...what a shame the younger generations are so ignorant of real science) yet, whilst
attempting to ridicule actual facts, you resort to this?:

Being jerked around by wire men sitting in rafters above the starless moon set.

This is bloody unbelievable!

The "wires" nonsense was shown long ago to be baloney, yet it seems every now and then a "new believer" comes
along and falls for that garbage, hook line and sinker. Talk about fairy tales....

Ask an adept film maker how they make their movies of actors on various planets look so real.

??? THIS, right here, proves how delusional some are...because I have seen a lot of movies that attempt to depict scenes on alien planets, and they
NEVER look 'realistic'. (The HBO series "From The Earth To The Moon" comes close...but, of course, Tom Hanks was involved in the
production, and he's a stickler for accuracy. AND it involved most recent techniques, and like any film production relied on a lot of editing to put
it all together).

But....here's the real tragedy:

Then ask them why the Apollo moon movies look so fake, that even the intellectually stunted can see they were fake.

Only the "intellectually stunted" would believe the Hollywood versions look "real"

Let's challenge EVERYONE! When you see any movie, and the actors are wearing "spacesuits", do you see how baggy they look? ( The suits, not the
actors...well, sometimes the actors too...

When Joe Rogan asked Phil Plait why the anots couldn't jump very high in 1/6th gravity, he answered because of the heavy backpacks they
were wearing. Then when Rogan pointed out the later missions when we see higher, and longer jumps, Plait refused to answer the contradiction, instead
making a moronic wager, he never intended to make good on.

OK....since hoax believers have no concept of reality regarding the EVA suits....

Phil Plait was partially correct, about the weight of the PLSS. He probably wasn't given enough time for a detailed answer,though, because there are
MANY other factors at work, in this "jumping" BS junk (this also seems to indicate that you, Un4g1v3n1 are rather new at this "hoax"
junk...because it's obvious you are just parroting the same garbage from 'hoax' websites...)

First, people who believe in these "hoax' claims have NO understanding of physics, this much is obvious.

Now, let's look at the EVA suits: Remember I mentioned up above about 'baggy' suits in movies and TV? That's because they are NOT inflated, as
real EVA suits are. Apollo-era suits (and modern suits today) operate on a pressure of about 4 to 5 psi. This is a 100% O2 environment, so at those
low pressures the partial pressure of oxygen is sufficient for survival.

So, the suits, being inflated, resisted bending. It took effort, plain ordinary MUSCLE effort to bend at the various joints, such as ankle, knee,
elbow, fingers, etc. (Look up the differences designed into the suits for Apollo 15, 16 and 17...with more flexibility built in to the hips, so they
could sit on the LRV).

(Interesting factoid: Astronaut's fingers were often bloodied and abraded from the work they did, and the rough interior surfaces of the inner
gloves. You can read accounts of TODAY'S astronauts, too --- unless you believe that they are 'fake' too? If so, then that is
truly tragic....anyway, when you actually read about he REALITY you will see anecdotal mention of Shuttle astronauts clipping their fingernails very
short, prior to suiting up for an EVA...because of the pain of a torn fingernail, if it's left too long and snags inside a glove...)

OK...and the physics part? It's called INERTIA, MASS and MOMENTUM.

The ignorant of physics (mistakingly) believe that in 1/6th G, that a person could then jump six times higher. "BUZZ!!" Wrong.

A person's MASS does not change. All MASS has INERTIA. (Look up Newton's Laws...)

Furthermore, as noted, the PLSS AND the entirity of the EVA suit added MORE MASS! THEN, there is the reduced mobility and flexibility....tell me, HW
does one 'jump' when here on Earth? Which muscles do you use, and how far do you flex them?? Normally-thinking adults should be able to see the
problem, by now.....if not yet, then consider how high you could jump IF your legs could not bend at the hips, and you could only use the muscles in
your ankles and calves....

For christs sake, all you have to do is watch science programs about the true nature of space to wake up from this one.

So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.

You'll never get an answer. But I would say that, as asked earlier in the thread, this is the best evidence that we actually went. There would be no
way to fake the telemetry transmissions without the astronauts actually being on the spacecraft.

The answer is so obvious, I am amazed no one has yet supplied it. An unmanned craft with pre-recorded broadcasts. But since NASA controlled the
feed, and broadcast to the general public, even that wasn't necessary.

Pretty simple stuff. I'm sure even the most loyal Apollogist should be able to GET IT...

I see you aren't going to ever answer this, so I'll just debunk it and be done with it.

You claim the spacecraft were unmanned with prerecorded missions aboard. Leaving aside all the immense difficulties this entails and all the people
who would have to be involved in the conspiracy, we find the one of the conspirators was GOD HIMSELF!

From the launch of Apollo 12:

000:00:34 Carr: Roger, Pete. [Pause.]

000:00:37 Gordon (onboard): What the hell was that?

000:00:38 Conrad (onboard): Huh?

000:00:39 Gordon (onboard): I lost a whole bunch of stuff; I don't know ...

000:00:40 Conrad (onboard): Turn off the buses.

Public Affairs Office - "40 seconds."

000:00:42 Carr: Mark.

000:00:43 Carr: One Bravo.

000:00:43 Conrad (onboard): Roger. We had a whole bunch of buses drop out.

000:00:44 Conrad: Roger. We [garble] on that. [Long pause.]

000:00:45 Bean (onboard): There's nothing - it's nothing ...

000:00:47 Gordon (onboard): A circuit ...

000:00:48 Conrad (onboard): Where are we going?

000:00:50 Gordon (onboard): I can't see; there's something wrong.

000:00:51 Conrad (onboard): AC Bus 1 light, all the fuel cells ...

000:00:56 Conrad (onboard): I just lost the platform.

Public Affairs Office - "Altitude a mile and a half now. Velocity 1,592 feet per second."

000:01:00 Bean: [Garble] Got your GDC.

000:01:02 Conrad: Okay, we just lost the platform, gang. I don't know what happened here; we had everything in the world drop out.

[Conrad from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I didn't notice the rate changes, because, at 36 seconds, I first noticed that something had happened
outside the spacecraft . I was aware of a white light . I knew that we were in the clouds; and, although I was watching the gauges I was aware of a
white light. The next thing I noted was that I heard the Master Alarm ringing in my ears and I glanced over to the caution and warning panel and it
was a sight to behold. There's a little disagreement among us and I'll have to look at the tapes, but my recollection of what I called out was three
Fuel Cell lights, both AC 1 Bus and AC 1 Overload, Fuel Cell Disconnect, Main A and B Bus Overload lights, and I was not aware of AC 2 lights. Dick
thought they were on. I don't think they were because I remember thinking that the only lights that weren't on of the electrical system was AC 2 and
maybe I ought to configure for an AC Bus 1 out."]

[Gordon from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "Let me make a comment here. A considerable length of time elapsed between the time those lights came on
and when Pete read them off to the ground. I can't swear positively that they were all on. To help Al, my usual habit was, when any light came on
during the boost phase, to read it out so that he didn't have to be concerned with which light it was. My recollection is that when I first glanced
up there I didn't read any of them to him, but I scanned all of them and the only thing I said to him was, " Al, all the lights are on." I am under
the impression that at one time, or initially at least, they were all on. Pete read it out quite a bit later. We'd talked about it and you read them
out a minute or so later."]

As anyone who knows Apollo will recognize, that is the moment when Apollo 12 was struck by lightning. Now, how could a prerecorded mission deal with
something that was so easily seen by spectators on the ground and watching on TV?

In other words, your wasting your time with people who have no desire for truth if it interferes with their nightly dreams of their Apollo Fairy Tales
bro!

[edit on 31-5-2010 by Un4g1v3n1]

BTW, Jarrah White has already been proven to be a liar. In his video going over a picture with a "perspective expert", it was shown that the woman
was his teacher helping him with a school project!.

That you believe him proves much about you.

Oh dear lord stop lying.
Please, enough.
You lie and distort so much its annoying.
The lady clearly stated what she did and what her expertise was in.

So what does that say about you?
Nevermind, I already said it.

As was already pointed out to you in this post., Jenny Heller, Jarrah's
teacher, admits in an email that she is not a "perspective expert", but was merely pretending to be to be one for a class assignment!

And he posted it on the internet as if she was a true expert!

Here is the email in question if anybody has any doubts as to the dishonesty of Foos and Jarrah:

Hi Dave,

What really fascinates me, is the amount of interest that conspiracy theories re: the moon landing generates.

Movies, documentaries etc it is a fascinating phenomena in itself.

You should take into consideration the background to Jarrah’s work, he made this documentary as one of his class assignments, as such
students have to create a piece with little or no resources at their disposal. Jarrah is particularly interested in things technical, and based most
of his works that particular year, around the concept that the lunar landing was faked. He required footage of a so called ‘expert’ to support the
story line he wished to persue, and as a teacher (at the coledge at that time) he asked if I would be willing to do the interview for his
assignment. I agreed as he did not have access to a ‘real authority’.The reality is that I am not even a professional photographer, the
interesting thing is that when a person is portrayed as an expert on film, people tend to believe it (I am a fine arts teacher).

What would be useful to you would be to get an analysis done by a true optical / physics specialist who could factor in things like: lense distortion,
surface refraction, light angle, light source distance, surface curvature etc. I am sure that your is evidence that a similar photo can be taken with
one light source that is equivatent [sic], can mount an argument to disprove Jarrah’s but it would require a specific type of lens, which is claimed
not to be the lens used by Nasa for these photos.

I honestly cant believe you attack the person, and switch off to different topics rather then focusing on the subject

that's very low skeptics

skeptics switching topics, just so can they skip the debate into another issue.

And weedwhacker you should work For NASA an Spokesman, since all u do is defending NASA rather then debating.

Astonishing. You speak of believing in 'fairy tales' and make disparaging references to people who understand the reality of Apollo, and real space
technology (not your distorted Hollywood-fantasy version...what a shame the younger generations are so ignorant of real science) yet, whilst
attempting to ridicule actual facts, you resort to this?:

Real Space technology? you must be kidding

Funny of skeptics they always seem to stay away from
radiation switch back on attacking people.

Tomblvd
BTW, Jarrah White has already been proven to be a liar. In his video going over a picture with a "perspective expert", it was shown that the woman
was his teacher helping him with a school project!.

I guess skeptics will believe anything that is PRO Nasa PRO government.

I do had strange emails claiming to be from other people, i to thought it was real, but it was not a real email, same goes on your so called point.

Last thing i guess skeptics should realized it by now, if NASA really landed on the moon the radiation would burn through the spacesuits and killed
them instantly live on tv.

Here's a interesting though, tell me then if we really made it on the moon, explain how the cameras were already on the moon waiting for the capsule
to land eh?

and as always radiation would burn the 1960s cameras in matter of seconds.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.